question about insurance from the new guy

[richieb9669]

i was in a casino tonight that i hit about once a month. I was playing 6 decks. The TC was +8 using hi/low and the RC was +17 with about 2 decks left. It was me and and another person at the table who i was able to chat with during a few shoes.
The question is the dealer had an ace showing and the guy next to me had (7,2) should i have ask to take insurance out on his hand? He had a nice bet out about 6 units for me. I asked if he was going to take it and he said "he never takes it that is a suckers play"
I took it for my 17 and the dealer had bj.

So back to the question would this be a smart play?
Thanks for any feedback

 

[Tree]

+8 TC? Yes.

Edit: I thought you were talking about your own hand when I answered this, but regardless I think the answer is still yes if he would let you.

 

[Thunder]

It's a tough question to answer because while it's +EV, it's a huge red flag that you're a counter. Unless the pitboss isn't nearby and you can do it very discreetly, I'd probably avoid it.

 

[Tree]

It's a tough question to answer because while it's +EV, it's a huge red flag that you're a counter. Unless the pitboss isn't nearby and you can do it very discreetly, I'd probably avoid it.

You could always cover by saying something like "Listen, last time I had X and he was showing an ace I wished I had taken insurance". Maybe not exactly that but I'm sure you could come up with something

 

[Midwestern]

all of the above is true. Scavenger plays like this one, while valuable +ev, definitely blow your cover, which is negative ev in the long run!

 

[tthree]

Dont over bet your advantage

Taking a large bet with a huge advantage carries risk of ruin considerations if you have to small a bankroll. If you choose to ignore the cautions given by other posters dont over bet relative to your bankroll. I believe most casinos allow you to insure for less than half the base bet. I usually never consider insuring for less because I am not over betting my bankroll and only insure in an advantage situation. So full insurance makes the most sense on my bets if taking insurance is warranted.

I think the number quoted most often is dont bet more than 1% of your bankroll on any bet. To determine the insurance bet in this situation you would include your bet in the total to be kept under 1% of total bankroll.

 

[MangoJ]

Taking a large bet with a huge advantage carries risk of ruin considerations if you have to small a bankroll.

This is not generally true for the insurance bet, if your hand is strong enough.
The reason is: your hand and the insurance side bet are anti-correlated. (If you win the insurance bet, you lose or tie your hand - and if your hand is strong and loose the insurance bet, you are likely to win the hand).

The variance of the combined bet (hand + insurance) is lower than variance of individual hand and individual insurance bet, and hence insuring a strong hand reduces variance, and the concept of overbetting does not apply.

 

[tthree]

This is not generally true for the insurance bet, if your hand is strong enough.
The reason is: your hand and the insurance side bet are anti-correlated. (If you win the insurance bet, you lose or tie your hand - and if your hand is strong and loose the insurance bet, you are likely to win the hand).

The variance of the combined bet (hand + insurance) is lower than variance of individual hand and individual insurance bet, and hence insuring a strong hand reduces variance, and the concept of overbetting does not apply.

Thanks for the info. I am still learning AP play. I only comment were I feel my level of expertise is sufficient to be useful to the poster. This has a twofold effect. I dont give the poster bad information in most cases. And were I feel confident in my knowledge the people who know far more than I do can help fine tune my understanding as you just did.

In this case the added insurance bet could be large enough to dilute the effect you are referring to. I always wondered why Ive seen advice to take insurance more frequently with strong hands.

I have a relatively small bankroll so risk aversion based playing decisions are very important considerations. Do you have any other recommendations for play modifications that are important to reduce variance?

 

[MangoJ]

In this case the added insurance bet could be large enough to dilute the effect you are referring to.

This is just a gut feeling, I think I would not bet more than my total initial wager on insurance, if you are close to overbetting. If you play two hands, and one is strong and one is weak, I would insure both hands. If both hands are weak, you could insure one of them.

I have a relatively small bankroll so risk aversion based playing decisions are very important considerations. Do you have any other recommendations for play modifications that are important to reduce variance?

RA indices are the first on my mind. You just basically avoid doubles and splits for marginal EV increases.

Another risk averse move is to play two hands of 1 unit instead of 1 hand of 2 units. Multiple hands are not independent (which would be even better), but not that much correlated (maybe 30%, but significantly below 100%). Then you get less variance for the same 2 unit total bet.